Latest Cases

Medical Practitioner – Negligence. The claimant had attended at the accident and emergency department of one of the defendant NHS Trust's hospital. The doctor had inserted a cannula in her left arm, even though she had told him that there was a risk of oedema due to a recent procedure that she had undergone. The cannula site became infected, the claimant suffered a fairly serious case of oedema and was left with a permanent disability in her left arm. The county court judge dismissed her claim for clinical negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had failed to take to its logical conclusion his finding that the cannula had been inserted without the claimant's consent. That had been a breach of the doctor's duty of care. The matter would be remitted to resolve issues of causation. 

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The judge and the Court of Appeal of Jamaica refused the appellant Assets Recovery Agency's application for a customer information order (CIO), pursuant to ss 119 to 125 of the Jamaican Proceeds of Crime Act 2007. The Privy Council, in dismissing the Agency's appeal, held that the Court of Appeal's refusal of the CIO had been correct because the flaws in the application had meant that the statutory conditions for making the order had not been made out. However, it had been in error in its ruling on three points of general principle and the correct approach was set out. 

Building – Construction. On the claimant's application, the judge had granted an ex parte injunction, preventing the defendant from carrying out excavations close to the party wall shared with the claimant's property, otherwise than in strict accordance with the method statement forming part of a party wall award. At the return date, the defendant was content for the injunction to continue, but objected to paying the claimant's costs of the action. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the defendant had been in breach of the party wall award and, in all the circumstances, the claimant had been entitled to have sought and obtained the ex parte injunction. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to his costs. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Grundig Multimedia AG against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), confirming rejection of the applicant's application for registration of the word sign 'Pianissimo' as a Community trade mark. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The business of the claimant, Gordon Ramsay (R) was run, in large part, by H. H operated a machine that automatically signed R's signature onto a guarantee. The issue arose as to whether R would be bound by the guarantee. The Chancery Division held that when H had committed R to the guarantee, he had been acting within the wide general authority conferred on him by R. 

Trade dispute – Dispute connected with terms and conditions of employment. The Privy Council allowed an appeal by Municipal Police Officers in Trinidad and Tobago who had complained that for over a decade they had been treated less favourably than Regular Police Officers, particularly in terms of remuneration. 

Firearms – Possession. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction for possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to s 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, held, among other things, that the judge had been plainly right to find that there was a case to answer. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive (EC) 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the legal protection of databases) should be interpreted as meaning that it was not applicable to a database which was not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that arts 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive did not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations on its use by third parties, without prejudice to the applicable national law. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Following an appeal by three former servicemen who had been injured in service, the Queen's Bench Division, having regard to the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, held that the fixed success fee regime in (pre 1 April 2013) CPR 45, s IV did not apply to claims brought by members of the armed forces in respect of injuries suffered at work. 

Contract – Rectification. The claimant and another businessman sold shares in a shipping company to the defendant company. A dispute arose as to the value of the shares. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the agreement between the parties had not reflected their common intention, and an order for rectification would be made.